The French get very vexed when they find themselves
starting to use imported English words, like "le weekend".
They try and force the French populace to use proper French
words, even if they have to make them up specially, like
"ordinateur" instead of "computer".

However in the
English
language, we have no qualms about borrowing words
from every other language. So, this idea is to start using
these invented French words, anglicising them slightly, so we
would start using the term "ordinater", as in "Hang on, I've
just got to check the weather forecast on the ordinater
before we go out!".

Then we will claim that these
have been in common use in the English-speaking world for
centuries and that they must have, at some time, by a sort of
linguistic osmosis, crept into the French language. This will
worry the French about the pollution of their language and
breakdown of civilisation,

I'm all for the idea, but a quick check of some of these
invented words/phrases shows that they're clunky and
odd. So it would take a particularly pleasing example for
anyone to want use. This would mean we would then be
replacing a word with one made up on the spot by the
French. If the French notice this, they will naturally
assume that we are substituting superior French words,
which isn't untrue.

The root of the problem, for the French at least, is that
they didn't get around to inventing the computer and as
such didn't get on the naming committee. The inventing
mismatch is likely to continue, so I have a suggestion. The
next time we invent something that's likely to become
commonplace, we name it using a French word.

If tomorrow, I invent a personal brain-computer interface
I'm going to call it a navire. This will then become
extremely popular, much faster than keyboards and all
that but confusion will be sewn among the French who
will have to invent a new name for "ship". With innovation
and care, whole sections of the language might be lost.

I just find it strange that the Normans, even if they were proto-Vikings, spoke French when they took over England. A 20-year DNA study completed at Oxford once suggested that of the 30% "Saxon" DNA in white English farmers, 40% of it came from France. It's hard not to get suspicious that Channel and world wars are really just a lot of Germanic cousins fighting each other.

Apropos to France's reputation, it appears that France could have prevented WWII entirely -- in 1924 -- by occupying the Ruhr Valley -- but the Germans and their English cousins shouted with outrage -- no, no, we need supplies to rebuild German armies.

I say take common English words and drop the endings, sort of like half rations.

I rather think this is more a case of the french firmly
affirming their national identity..

You know, the one they've had since at least the french
revolution.

My feelings about them right now are a little ambiguous, as
a fellow European I'm feeling just a little bit proud of them
right now* & at the same time just a little bit jealous (aside
from those deaths involved, which are tragic, obviously).

I've often wished my lot had a bit more passion when it
came to telling their masters that they'd really like them to
stop
screwing them in the arse with a hot poker now because
they're not enjoying it any more, because frankly, mildly
worded petitions just don't get the job done these days
(and it's awfully hard to produce legible
handwriting while someone's ramming a poker
up your arse anyway, the pen keeps slipping).

* Some might consider those sentiments odd coming from
someone who voted for out (of the EU) & still wants to
see it happen but there it is.

Those that were "Vikings" invaded, conquered (raped,
pillaged, engaged in a little light tourism) & colonized
throughout Europe (& far beyond), the Normans were
the descendants of those Vikings who settled in France.

Ergo the Normans (who were
after the Vikings) could be described as post-Vikings, but
could
not be described as proto-Vikings.

A proto-Viking could only be something _before_ the
Vikings (& before they _were_ Vikings).

So the Normans can't be proto-Vikings by any stretch of the
imagination (because they came after the Vikings).

Where or when your proto-Vikings came from is completely
irrelevant to any of that linguistic pedantry.

What I am saying is, those French people, who were possibly-proto Vikings, were just sitting in France, waiting to be seeded like a baguette eater. Their offspring, from Norman manliness, would be proto-Viking. If you want to restrict the word Norman to mean only Vikings who lived in France and never intermarried, well, let's do that.

What your saying is the peoples that became Vikings
migrated through France then back again.

Out of Africa--> pre-Viking french--> Viking--> Norman
conquest of those who'd previously settled in France-->
French-Norman --> not satisfied with that the buggers came
over
here to ravish our livestock & slaughter our women.

The first two would be proto-Vikings--> Vikings would be
Vikings--> and
everything after would be post-Vikings (chrono-linguistically
speaking).

Also, when newspapers reported on the Oxford study, they only described the "30% Saxon" element of white farmer DNA. How 30% can be said to be a definitive proportion to describe race is a mystery for English news editors everywhere.

I still don't see why you think it's strange the Normans who
invaded Albion spoke French though, after all they were
several generations removed from the original Viking
invaders of France that they were (partially by then)
descended
from, same thing happened when they came here, within a
couple of generations they were all speaking English & all
that was left was a slew of (so 12?) loan words from
French in the English language.

//Having problems reconciling that with having been told all humans are
99.9% identical & there's barely 1% difference between humans & chimps
are they?//

I've not looked at the article (or the research), but if two sequences of
DNA are 99.9% identical, there's a single base difference every kilobase on
average. If you have many kilobases of sequence, you can compare where
there are differences between several organisms, and determine what the
most likely relationships are.
There may be other variation which isn't included in the 99.9% identity
figure. There can be structural variations - such as inversions, deletions,
insertions and duplications. These are also quite useful to track, because
they're much less likely to recur or revert precisely.

DNA is somewhere between an instruction and a pattern,
maybe the mold for a brick would be a good analogy.
Some years ago I happened upon a pile of top quality
Victorian engineering bricks. These bricks are the sort of
things used to create soaring railway viaducts suspending
hundreds of tonnes a hundred feet in the air for a
hundred years. Marvels of engineering.

Now, I adopted these bricks and with no bricklaying
experience, set about building a BBQ. Comparing a
viaduct to my BBQ shows that from identical building
blocks the outputs can vary wildly in scope, scale, utility,
longevity, aesthetics and monumental value. Not in this
case though, I think they're about equal.

//DNA is somewhere between an instruction and a pattern//
Hmm. I would have to inagree, certainly about the pattern
part. Nothing in DNA tells you what shape vertebrae should
be, except in a very, very, very roundabout way. It's more
like a recipe than a pattern* - a printed recipe doesn't look
remotely like a piece of food.

(*In the case of plants, corals and the Welsh it's more of a
rough guideline.)

Fine ... but then, producing a full roast turkey dinner with all the trimmings requires a priori knowledge on the part of the cook other than the recipe that says "Stuff turkey, place in oven at 180C, forty minutes per kilo plus twenty minutes". There's all sorts of other stuff about plates, and gravy, and vegetables, and carving that cooks are "supposed to know".

So you have a DNA sequence that says "This is how to make <protein1>" where <protein1> has an innate tendency to form a flat sheet, like a cell membrane; and another sequence makes <protein2> which has an innate tendency to stick to, and through, a membrane made of <protein1> and transport sodium or potassium or calcium ions. Et viola, you've built a bacterium. But it's not going to "know" about plates, gravy, vegetables, carving and cranberry sauce*.

But how does such a simplistic system go from assembling sheets of proteins (which, while non-trival, is comprehensible) to assembling, for example, herds of caribou, without any a priori knowledge of hooves, antlers or hair ? Yet there is some evidence to support the assertion that caribou do, in fact, exist.

// In the case of ... the Welsh it's more of a rough guideline. //

Bloody rough ...

Recipe: "Take a load of mud and rocks, add a bucket each of spite, insecurity, resentment and envy, and leave out in the rain until it starts showing an interest in sheep and rugby".

It doesn't. But I meant that DNA isn't just information, it
can act just like a -ve mold or pattern to produce
functional RNAs. With proteins, its a little more abstract
because they are a -ve of a -ve, with the RNA acting a
little like an assembly jig. The point is that the DNA
sequence has a direct physical influence on brick/protein
shape and size. It's not like an enzyme scoots along the
DNA and fires out a series of second messenger pulses and
the ribosome goes "Yes boss! 2 dozen more actin, got
it.... mumble mumble actin obsessed that one.."

Upon seeing the title of this idea I gleefully imagined
fishermen with heavy duty rods and reels dragging
Frenchmen, painfully impaled on large hooks, through an
ocean of bloody chum in hopes of catching something
worthwhile. But no, not even close.